The hope, of course, was that the court might address the ridiculousness of the charge and the huge problems of the CFAA, which currently permits the government to go after pretty much anyone who uses a computer in a way they don't like. Instead, the conviction was tossed for being in the wrong venue:

Although this appeal raises a number of complex and novel issues that are of great public importance in our increasingly interconnected age, we find it necessary to reach only one that has been fundamental since our country’s founding: venue.

But, while the ruling punts on the CFAA, it raises some issues in its venue analysis that could themselves have a wider impact. Weev was prosecuted in New Jersey based on the flimsy rationale that New Jersey residents were affected by the security flaw exposure (but really because New Jersey has its own anti-hacking laws, and the DOJ was able to pursue a harsher punishment if the CFAA intersected with state laws). But the appeals court found that, since none of the allegedly illegal activities undertaken by weev happened in New Jersey, this was inappropriate:

New Jersey was not the site of either essential conduct element. The evidence at trial demonstrated that the accessed AT&T servers were located in Dallas, Texas, and Atlanta, Georgia. In addition, during the time that the conspiracy began, continued, and ended, Spitler was obtaining information in San Francisco, California, and Auernheimer was assisting him from Fayetteville, Arkansas. No protected computer was accessed and no data was obtained in New Jersey.

Since the question of venue is still very muddy when it comes to the internet, this likely isn't the last we'll be hearing about this ruling, and its impact on other cases could prove interesting. It's also likely not an end to weev's story, and certainly not an end to government abuse of the CFAA. But, for now and at the very least, it says that if the DOJ is going to try to throw you in jail for the crime of Vaguely Misusing A Computer While Being Kind Of A Jerk, it at least has to do it in the correct venue instead of going fishing for the most favorable one.

Update: As noted in the First Word comment below, the ruling did make mention of the fact that no crime had been clearly established, which suggests that if the court had addressed the bigger questions about the charge, it may not have gone well for the DOJ. For now, we'll have to be satisfied with a non-binding footnote.

Although not binding, it is important to note that the court did address (in a footnote) that there wasn't a clear crime committed:

We also note that in order to be guilty of accessing without authorization, or in excess of authorization” under New Jersey law, the Government needed to prove that Auernheimer or Spitler circumvented a code - or password - based barrier to access. See State v. Riley, 988 A.2d 1252,1267 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 2009). Although we need not resolve whether Auernheimer’s conduct involved such a breach, no evidence was advanced at trial that the account slurper ever breached any password gate or other code-based barrier. The account slurper simply accessed the publicly facing portion of the login screen and scraped information that AT&T unintentionally published.

Re:

Venue is important

Limiting venue is important. One should not have to face trial in a jurisdiction just because of some tangential contact with someone who happens to reside in that jurisdiction.

As an extreme example, imagine how it would be if a person in country A doing something to a server in country B could be tried in country C because in the past someone in country C had used that server in country B.

Or an even more extreme example, someone in one country doing something that is legal in his own country but which would be illegal if done in another country, being detained and tried in that other country.

Bouncing the case on venue instantly kills the conviction. Almost any other reversal requires re-doing part of the trail, which is expensive, time consuming, and risks another bogus outcome.

The footnote is a strong hint to the prosecutors that they were wrong, and should not re-file charges in a different venue. They can save face by claiming "a technicality".(But I'll go with 'Technically correct, the best kind of correct.')

Re: Not to mix metaphors ...

I'd say it does matter, at least in part.

Throwing it out due to improper venue is good, but it also allows them to re-file the thing elsewhere if they want, whereas if the court had flat out ruled that no laws had been broken, then re-filing the case might have been a titch difficult.

Re: Venue is important

Re: Re: Not to mix metaphors ...

Only weev be protected due to double jeopardy. They had their chance and they convicted him in the wrong venue. So they done goofed. I think weev is also in the position to sue them now civilly. I believe the appropriate Latin phrase here is "Repensum Est Canicula".

Re:

Also, other judges and US Courts will read this opinion and take note that venue shopping will be frowned upon. The footnote strongly hints that they did not find the evidence of a crime persuasive but mostly based on the AUSA engaging in shystering.

hacking?

I always wonder how this simple stuff gets past the trial judge. Not the venue thing, because they make up those rules with regards to the internet as they go along. But the part where the guy doesn't compromise a password or anything to find the info.

Re: Venue is important

Limiting venue is important. One should not have to face trial in a jurisdiction just because of some tangential contact with someone who happens to reside in that jurisdiction.

Look up the Amateur Action BBS case. A man and his wife ran a subscription porn BBS in California, where it was investigated and deemed to be legal. A postal inspector from Tennessee started an investigation and they were eventually convicted of violating Tennessee's community standards.

Re: Not to mix metaphors ...

Exactly. His attorneys did a very good job and the Appeals court most likely would of, if the venue question had not been raised, upheld the appeal as well. Though with the venue being an absolute problem they had a better ability to crush the conviction and add in as obiter what they really felt like as well.

This will most likely have wider implications and might (one can hope) make the DoJ be more accountable and apply due diligence before they do this again to some poor soul.